bedtundy:Phinn: BraveNewCheneyWorld: They're getting him for murder, or nothing at all.

Self-defense is a complete defense to all homicides. And the same presumptions and evidentiary burdens apply. They went for murder because - why not?

Are any of the lead attorneys going for any political positions? DA, State Senate, any political office really?

Sorry, don't know who the state has representing them all that well, the attorneys I mean. Just seems odd to go for Murder rather than the easier manslaughter charge.

Unless you know you're going to be prosecuting what is essentially an innocent man, so you pick the highest charge you reasonably can knowing it won't convict. You can say it was the court that failed, the man goes free, and justice is (semi)done.

NightOwl2255:You don't seem to understand how an affirmative defense works. The state can, and will, prove that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Hell, the defense will stipulate to that fact. At that point, Zimmerman damn sure has to prove he was acting in self defense. If you want to see how it works out for a defendant that doesn't prove he was acting in self-defense, Google Jerome Ersland.

You don't seem to understand the law in Florida, my friend.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. Period.

Do some research about the law. Everyone knows that Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon. That is a fact and is not in dispute.

here is the wording (jury instructions) from FL law as it pertains to this case -

"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."

In other words - the prosecution MUST PROVE from the existing evidence that Zimmerman did not act in self defense. They will unable to do so as there is no evidence that he DID NOT act in self defense.

Phinn:manimal2878: redmid17: There are eyewitnesses who put Martin on top of Zimmerman right before the shot was fired, so the ability to flee at least should not be in question.

Did he try punching him off, pushing him off first? He has to exhaust every other option first if he the jury sees him to be the aggressor.

Do you have conclusive proof he didn't do these things?

You keep forgetting who has the burden of proof, and what that level of proof needs to be.

And you keep forgetting that part of that burden involves dispelling the defense's argument that Zimmerman was defending himself after being attacked initially by Martin, rather than getting his ass whipped after instigating a fight with Martin. You cannot prove one way or the other how things happened, just as no one else can, because we're not privy to all of the facts, nor are we a part of the jury, prosecution, or defense teams.

Your willful obfuscation of the discussion in an effort to look like you know what the fark you're talking about is amusing, even if failing.

NightOwl2255:You don't seem to understand how an affirmative defense works. The state can, and will, prove that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Hell, the defense will stipulate to that fact. At that point, Zimmerman damn sure has to prove he was acting in self defense. If you want to see how it works out for a defendant that doesn't prove he was acting in self-defense, Google Jerome Ersland.

They are right to a degree, there is a court case in the specific district that this trial is in that supports their view. However the jury instructions that this jury aren't worded the way they think.

frepnog:NightOwl2255: You don't seem to understand how an affirmative defense works. The state can, and will, prove that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Hell, the defense will stipulate to that fact. At that point, Zimmerman damn sure has to prove he was acting in self defense. If you want to see how it works out for a defendant that doesn't prove he was acting in self-defense, Google Jerome Ersland.

You don't seem to understand the law in Florida, my friend.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. Period.

Do some research about the law. Everyone knows that Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon. That is a fact and is not in dispute.

here is the wording (jury instructions) from FL law as it pertains to this case -

"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."

In other words - the prosecution MUST PROVE from the existing evidence that Zimmerman did not act in self defense. They will unable to do so as there is no evidence that he DID NOT act in self defense.

The judge should not even let this case go to a jury. If she had any measurable intelligence and courage, she'd have dismissed the case, or at the latest, she'd direct a Not Guilty verdict.

Satanic_Hamster:Really, I just more curious to why someone would have two flashlights

I carry two flashlights pretty much all the time. One cost about 40 dollars and is LED powered by a single AAA, which it is only slightly larger than. It is brighter than an old maglite requiring 4 d cell batteries. My other flashlight is a tiny LED attached to my keychain powered by a watch battery. It takes no extra effort to carry the keychain flashlight and I always have that one on me even if I forget my larger one. It is amazing how often it is useful to have a flashlight handy, even for some extra light in a fairly well lit room. I got into the habit when I worked in a building with few external windows, no generator, and frequent power outages.

ongbok:DROxINxTHExWIND: ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: ChaosStar: DROxINxTHExWIND: IS ANYONE ELSE WATCHING THIS TRIAL?? DID YOU SEE THE PICTURES SHOWING WHERE MARTIN'S BODY WAS? LOOK HOW farkING FAR THEY WERE OFF OF THE STREET!!

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

Sidewalks tend not to be extremely far off of a street.

except for when they're a pathway between two condo buildings, as in this case, with the pathway being about 3-5ft away from Martin's body in clear view.

I'm reffering to the question about WHO was looking for a confrontation. What the fark was Zimmerman doing THAT far from his truck? He was chasing that kid down for a confrontation.

I have been asking that question for a year. I have been told that his body was only 30 feet from the truck, obviously it wasn't, or haven't gotten any response, or had people just repeat over and over again the Zimmerman was jumped. Basically the pro Zimmerman side has know answer for that.

I guess I should ask how far you feel he was from his truck. His truck was parked in front of a townhouse at the end of the row. The fight started behind that same townhouse at the intersection of the cut through and the dog run. Townhouse properties aren't that big. Judging by google maps, it's probably just over 100'. Again, not that far,

Now I have a question that I've been trying to get answered for a year. Martin runs away from Zimmerman and his truck. 4 minutes later, he's 100 feet from the truck fighting with Zimmerman. How is he that close to the truck if Zimmerman was supposedly chasing him through the neighborhood unless he hid and confronted Zimmerman or double backed and confronted Zimmerman?

PoochUMD:ongbok: DROxINxTHExWIND: ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: ChaosStar: DROxINxTHExWIND: IS ANYONE ELSE WATCHING THIS TRIAL?? DID YOU SEE THE PICTURES SHOWING WHERE MARTIN'S BODY WAS? LOOK HOW farkING FAR THEY WERE OFF OF THE STREET!!

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

Sidewalks tend not to be extremely far off of a street.

except for when they're a pathway between two condo buildings, as in this case, with the pathway being about 3-5ft away from Martin's body in clear view.

I'm reffering to the question about WHO was looking for a confrontation. What the fark was Zimmerman doing THAT far from his truck? He was chasing that kid down for a confrontation.

I have been asking that question for a year. I have been told that his body was only 30 feet from the truck, obviously it wasn't, or haven't gotten any response, or had people just repeat over and over again the Zimmerman was jumped. Basically the pro Zimmerman side has know answer for that.

I guess I should ask how far you feel he was from his truck. His truck was parked in front of a townhouse at the end of the row. The fight started behind that same townhouse at the intersection of the cut through and the dog run. Townhouse properties aren't that big. Judging by google maps, it's probably just over 100'. Again, not that far,

Now I have a question that I've been trying to get answered for a year. Martin runs away from Zimmerman and his truck. 4 minutes later, he's 100 feet from the truck fighting with Zimmerman. How is he that close to the truck if Zimmerman was supposedly chasing him through the neighborhood unless he hid and confronted Zimmerman or double backed and confronted Zimmerman?

Stand Your Ground doesn't require a person to try and run away; you just have to be in fear for your life.

PoochUMD:ongbok: DROxINxTHExWIND: ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: ChaosStar: DROxINxTHExWIND: IS ANYONE ELSE WATCHING THIS TRIAL?? DID YOU SEE THE PICTURES SHOWING WHERE MARTIN'S BODY WAS? LOOK HOW farkING FAR THEY WERE OFF OF THE STREET!!

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

Sidewalks tend not to be extremely far off of a street.

except for when they're a pathway between two condo buildings, as in this case, with the pathway being about 3-5ft away from Martin's body in clear view.

I'm reffering to the question about WHO was looking for a confrontation. What the fark was Zimmerman doing THAT far from his truck? He was chasing that kid down for a confrontation.

I have been asking that question for a year. I have been told that his body was only 30 feet from the truck, obviously it wasn't, or haven't gotten any response, or had people just repeat over and over again the Zimmerman was jumped. Basically the pro Zimmerman side has know answer for that.

I guess I should ask how far you feel he was from his truck. His truck was parked in front of a townhouse at the end of the row. The fight started behind that same townhouse at the intersection of the cut through and the dog run. Townhouse properties aren't that big. Judging by google maps, it's probably just over 100'. Again, not that far,

Now I have a question that I've been trying to get answered for a year. Martin runs away from Zimmerman and his truck. 4 minutes later, he's 100 feet from the truck fighting with Zimmerman. How is he that close to the truck if Zimmerman was supposedly chasing him through the neighborhood unless he hid and confronted Zimmerman or double backed and confronted Zimmerman?

A Benny Hill chase scene ensues with copious amounts of Yakety Sax (surprised the neighbors didn't hear or see that, the little bald headed man is kind of hard to miss, and the girls too of course.) ? Don't those always lead back to where they nearly started?

However the jury instructions that this jury aren't worded the way they think.

Go on. As I understand things, frepnog has the right of it.

He's right, but the contention is that the instructions use the word "convinced" and not "beyond a reasonable doubt" it's not as strongly worded in favor of the defendant as it should be. Self defense advocates have been challenging this wording since it was put in place.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

ChaosStar:bedtundy: Phinn: BraveNewCheneyWorld: They're getting him for murder, or nothing at all.

Self-defense is a complete defense to all homicides. And the same presumptions and evidentiary burdens apply. They went for murder because - why not?

Are any of the lead attorneys going for any political positions? DA, State Senate, any political office really?

Sorry, don't know who the state has representing them all that well, the attorneys I mean. Just seems odd to go for Murder rather than the easier manslaughter charge.

Unless you know you're going to be prosecuting what is essentially an innocent man, so you pick the highest charge you reasonably can knowing it won't convict. You can say it was the court that failed, the man goes free, and justice is (semi)done.

I guess that makes sense. Just seems like the state set themselves up to fail.

gimmegimme:PoochUMD: ongbok: DROxINxTHExWIND: ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: ChaosStar: DROxINxTHExWIND: IS ANYONE ELSE WATCHING THIS TRIAL?? DID YOU SEE THE PICTURES SHOWING WHERE MARTIN'S BODY WAS? LOOK HOW farkING FAR THEY WERE OFF OF THE STREET!!

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

Sidewalks tend not to be extremely far off of a street.

except for when they're a pathway between two condo buildings, as in this case, with the pathway being about 3-5ft away from Martin's body in clear view.

I'm reffering to the question about WHO was looking for a confrontation. What the fark was Zimmerman doing THAT far from his truck? He was chasing that kid down for a confrontation.

I have been asking that question for a year. I have been told that his body was only 30 feet from the truck, obviously it wasn't, or haven't gotten any response, or had people just repeat over and over again the Zimmerman was jumped. Basically the pro Zimmerman side has know answer for that.

I guess I should ask how far you feel he was from his truck. His truck was parked in front of a townhouse at the end of the row. The fight started behind that same townhouse at the intersection of the cut through and the dog run. Townhouse properties aren't that big. Judging by google maps, it's probably just over 100'. Again, not that far,

Now I have a question that I've been trying to get answered for a year. Martin runs away from Zimmerman and his truck. 4 minutes later, he's 100 feet from the truck fighting with Zimmerman. How is he that close to the truck if Zimmerman was supposedly chasing him through the neighborhood unless he hid and confronted Zimmerman or double backed and confronted Zimmerman?

Stand Your Ground doesn't require a person to try and run away; you just have to be in fear for your life.

Who said anything about stand your ground? I've read for the past 16 months that Zimmerman stalked Martin through neighborhood, some even claim that he caught him and/or kept him from continuing on his way home. Explain how that is possible only to have the confrontation happen 4 minutes later, only 100 feet away.

PoochUMD:ongbok: DROxINxTHExWIND: ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: ChaosStar: DROxINxTHExWIND: IS ANYONE ELSE WATCHING THIS TRIAL?? DID YOU SEE THE PICTURES SHOWING WHERE MARTIN'S BODY WAS? LOOK HOW farkING FAR THEY WERE OFF OF THE STREET!!

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

Sidewalks tend not to be extremely far off of a street.

except for when they're a pathway between two condo buildings, as in this case, with the pathway being about 3-5ft away from Martin's body in clear view.

I'm reffering to the question about WHO was looking for a confrontation. What the fark was Zimmerman doing THAT far from his truck? He was chasing that kid down for a confrontation.

I have been asking that question for a year. I have been told that his body was only 30 feet from the truck, obviously it wasn't, or haven't gotten any response, or had people just repeat over and over again the Zimmerman was jumped. Basically the pro Zimmerman side has know answer for that.

I guess I should ask how far you feel he was from his truck. His truck was parked in front of a townhouse at the end of the row. The fight started behind that same townhouse at the intersection of the cut through and the dog run. Townhouse properties aren't that big. Judging by google maps, it's probably just over 100'. Again, not that far,

Now I have a question that I've been trying to get answered for a year. Martin runs away from Zimmerman and his truck. 4 minutes later, he's 100 feet from the truck fighting with Zimmerman. How is he that close to the truck if Zimmerman was supposedly chasing him through the neighborhood unless he hid and confronted Zimmerman or double backed and confronted Zimmerman?

CliChe Guevara:gimmegimme: Stand Your Ground doesn't require a person to try and run away; you just have to be in fear for your life.

Martin experienced both. So he was well covered under that law. What was your point again?

Except that it is quite clear from the evidence that Trayvon was in fact guilty of assault against Zimmerman. SYG does not apply, did not apply to Zimmerman and never would have applied to Trayvon. It is a clear-cut case of self-defense - that is, Zimmerman was legally able to defend himself from Trayvon's assault and did so. Zimmerman committed no crime. It is quite obvious from evidence and witness statements what happened. Trayvon was not assaulted by Zimmerman and Trayvon was in no fear of his life; in fact was in no fear at all. Trayvon was ANGRY and went purposefully to Zimmerman after evading his surveillance.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

One of us is really stupid, drunk or just not processing properly. I admit to being drunk, so maybe that's the problem.

Regardless, this still sounds as if the burden rests with the prosecution. They have to prove Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defence. How else can you read that? The first bit suggests that if you have a reasonable doubt...if you aren't sure...that Zimmerman should be found not guilty. The second part suggests that the prosecution has to convince you that, again, Zimmerman wasn't defending himself. Where are we disconnecting?

This text is now purple:There is not and never has been an argument that Martin did not have the right to defend himself.

Had Zimmerman attacked Martin, Martin had every right to defend himself. However it is quite clear that this is not what happened. Martin came to Zimmerman, punched him in the face, knocked him down, mounted him and began to beat the shiat out of him.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

One of us is really stupid, drunk or just not processing properly. I admit to being drunk, so maybe that's the problem.

Regardless, this still sounds as if the burden rests with the prosecution. They have to prove Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defence. How else can you read that? The first bit suggests that if you have a reasonable doubt...if you aren't sure...that Zimmerman should be found not guilty. The second part suggests that the prosecution has to convince you that, again, Zimmerman wasn't defending himself. Where are we disconnecting?

He's just got massive cognitive dissonance going on right now. Someone should really do a psych case study on it. Desperately trying to twist facts to conform to his debunked strongly held beliefs upon realizing they are false.

frepnog:This text is now purple: There is not and never has been an argument that Martin did not have the right to defend himself.

Had Zimmerman attacked Martin, Martin had every right to defend himself. However it is quite clear that this is not what happened. Martin came to Zimmerman, punched him in the face, knocked him down, mounted him and began to beat the shiat out of him.

No evidence shows any other conclusion.

Martin only needs a reasonable fear, same as Zimmerman. However, Martin's right to defend himself does not preclude Zimmerman's simultaneous right to the same.

MFAWG:PoochUMD: ongbok: DROxINxTHExWIND: ChaosStar: QueenMamaBee: ChaosStar: DROxINxTHExWIND: IS ANYONE ELSE WATCHING THIS TRIAL?? DID YOU SEE THE PICTURES SHOWING WHERE MARTIN'S BODY WAS? LOOK HOW farkING FAR THEY WERE OFF OF THE STREET!!

and that has what to do with anything exactly?

Sidewalks tend not to be extremely far off of a street.

except for when they're a pathway between two condo buildings, as in this case, with the pathway being about 3-5ft away from Martin's body in clear view.

I'm reffering to the question about WHO was looking for a confrontation. What the fark was Zimmerman doing THAT far from his truck? He was chasing that kid down for a confrontation.

I have been asking that question for a year. I have been told that his body was only 30 feet from the truck, obviously it wasn't, or haven't gotten any response, or had people just repeat over and over again the Zimmerman was jumped. Basically the pro Zimmerman side has know answer for that.

I guess I should ask how far you feel he was from his truck. His truck was parked in front of a townhouse at the end of the row. The fight started behind that same townhouse at the intersection of the cut through and the dog run. Townhouse properties aren't that big. Judging by google maps, it's probably just over 100'. Again, not that far,

Now I have a question that I've been trying to get answered for a year. Martin runs away from Zimmerman and his truck. 4 minutes later, he's 100 feet from the truck fighting with Zimmerman. How is he that close to the truck if Zimmerman was supposedly chasing him through the neighborhood unless he hid and confronted Zimmerman or double backed and confronted Zimmerman?

He stood his ground?

Again, nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. How does Zimmerman stalk/chase/hunt/etc after Martin for 4 minutes, only to be 100 feet from the truck when the confrontation happens? IMO, it's only possible if Martin hides or doubles back and therefore Zimmerman never really chased after anyone, he just ran behind a house and the kid was already gone.

frepnog:This text is now purple: There is not and never has been an argument that Martin did not have the right to defend himself.

Had Zimmerman attacked Martin, Martin had every right to defend himself. However it is quite clear that this is not what happened. Martin came to Zimmerman, punched him in the face, knocked him down, mounted him and began to beat the shiat out of him.

No evidence shows any other conclusion.

That's the most likely scenario, in my opinion. More importantly, it's reasonable doubt. It's totally reasonable that Martin may have attacked Zimmerman. There is no way you could convince me, barring any surprising new evidence, that could not possibly have been the case. That ought to be good enough for the defense, no? You can't really convince anyone that that's absolutely what happened, due to a lack of witnesses to the initial altercation, but it certainly meets my understanding of the burden of proof in this case.

Two16:Mid_mo_mad_man: IamAwake: kendelrio: IamAwake: He deserved to get a little beat up for that,

So women who wear short skirts, lots of makeup and are out of their homes after dark unaccompanied deserve rape? Nice bit of logic you have there.......

nice bit of cutting out text you have there...

If a person attacks someone, then chases them down and attacks them again, then at some point "most would think" that the person being attacked is justified in keeping the attacker from attacking a third time. If you think that has absolutely any comparison to raping someone based on what they are wearing, you're a complete and total idiot. That, and just because "most would think" something doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it.

How is following someone attacking them? If your walking down the street I have every right to ask you what your doing. You can choose to answer me, tell me to piss off, keep walking or god forbid call 911 It does not give you the right to punch me. Martin wasn'y scared that night. The gf statements prove this. He was pissed that he was followed. He confronted Zimmerman and ended up the loser. Could have just kept walking and would be alive today.

Yeah, he's the total source of all his ills. Yup...

[i39.tinypic.com image 850x251]

He chose to confront Zimmerman. Zimmerman had lost track of him according to the 911 recording. Martin to double back and attack Zimmerman. Idiot got shot and deserved it.

gimmegimme:CliChe Guevara: gimmegimme: Stand Your Ground doesn't require a person to try and run away; you just have to be in fear for your life.

Martin experienced both. So he was well covered under that law. What was your point again?

Some justify Zimmy shooting Martin by saying that Zimmy was scared for his life. These same folks seldom admit that Martin could have been scared for his life.

This text is now purple: CliChe Guevara: gimmegimme: Stand Your Ground doesn't require a person to try and run away; you just have to be in fear for your life.

Martin experienced both. So he was well covered under that law. What was your point again?

There is not and never has been an argument that Martin did not have the right to defend himself.

I dunno; lots of folks say that Martin wasn't scared and should have just kept walking and he would be alive today.

[i39.tinypic.com image 850x251]

So you think he was scared for his life, even though he didn't call the cops, continued to talk to DeeDee, DeeDee tesitfied, in the most positive light possible for Trayvon that he said "I will not run," Trayvon could have escaped to his home without issue, and also could have identified himself when asked "what are you doing here?"

Based on what, exactly?

And lets say he was afraid. So? You can't stand your ground when you assault someone. So far, there has been exactly zero facts OR evidence that support anything other than Trayvon assaulting Zimmerman, which negates any argument for SYG.

frepnog:This text is now purple: There is not and never has been an argument that Martin did not have the right to defend himself.

Had Zimmerman attacked Martin, Martin had every right to defend himself. However it is quite clear that this is not what happened. Martin came to Zimmerman, punched him in the face, knocked him down, mounted him and began to beat the shiat out of him.

No evidence shows any other conclusion.

What (and remember this phrase, because you're going to hear it in the prosecution's closing argument several times) was the 'sequence of events' that led up to this altercation?

PoochUMD:Again, nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. How does Zimmerman stalk/chase/hunt/etc after Martin for 4 minutes, only to be 100 feet from the truck when the confrontation happens? IMO, it's only possible if Martin hides or doubles back and therefore Zimmerman never really chased after anyone, he just ran behind a house and the kid was already gone.

So you're saying that Zimmy is a terrible wannabe law enforcement officer. I agree.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

One of us is really stupid, drunk or just not processing properly. I admit to being drunk, so maybe that's the problem.

Regardless, this still sounds as if the burden rests with the prosecution. They have to prove Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defence. How else can you read that? The first bit suggests that if you have a reasonable doubt...if you aren't sure...that Zimmerman should be found not guilty. The second part suggests that the prosecution has to convince you that, again, Zimmerman wasn't defending himself. Where are we disconnecting?

He thinks that Zimmerman must prove he was acting in self defense, when this is not at all what must happen. The state must convince and prove to the jury that it was NOT self defense based on the evidence- which is something that they will be quite unable to do. This, to me, is even beyond "reasonable doubt". There is no evidence that contradicts the self-defense claim. This isn't like OJ, where the defense concocted this ridiculous chain of events to sow the seeds of "reasonable doubt" in the face of a mountain of forensic evidence proving OJ guilty (he was, by the way, as guilty as sin. the evidence was quite clear). This is the prosecution trying to say "find him guilty even though all evidence shows him to be innocent of a crime".

It is also why any civil "wrongful death" lawsuit against Zimmerman will fail. There will still be no evidence that Zimmerman committed a crime of any kind.

Mid_mo_mad_man:Two16: Mid_mo_mad_man: IamAwake: kendelrio: IamAwake: He deserved to get a little beat up for that,

So women who wear short skirts, lots of makeup and are out of their homes after dark unaccompanied deserve rape? Nice bit of logic you have there.......

nice bit of cutting out text you have there...

If a person attacks someone, then chases them down and attacks them again, then at some point "most would think" that the person being attacked is justified in keeping the attacker from attacking a third time. If you think that has absolutely any comparison to raping someone based on what they are wearing, you're a complete and total idiot. That, and just because "most would think" something doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it.

How is following someone attacking them? If your walking down the street I have every right to ask you what your doing. You can choose to answer me, tell me to piss off, keep walking or god forbid call 911 It does not give you the right to punch me. Martin wasn'y scared that night. The gf statements prove this. He was pissed that he was followed. He confronted Zimmerman and ended up the loser. Could have just kept walking and would be alive today.

Yeah, he's the total source of all his ills. Yup...

[i39.tinypic.com image 850x251]

He chose to confront Zimmerman. Zimmerman had lost track of him according to the 911 recording. Martin to double back and attack Zimmerman. Idiot got shot and deserved it.

Mid_mo_mad_man:Mid_mo_mad_man: Two16: Mid_mo_mad_man: IamAwake: kendelrio: IamAwake: He deserved to get a little beat up for that,

So women who wear short skirts, lots of makeup and are out of their homes after dark unaccompanied deserve rape? Nice bit of logic you have there.......

nice bit of cutting out text you have there...

If a person attacks someone, then chases them down and attacks them again, then at some point "most would think" that the person being attacked is justified in keeping the attacker from attacking a third time. If you think that has absolutely any comparison to raping someone based on what they are wearing, you're a complete and total idiot. That, and just because "most would think" something doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it.

How is following someone attacking them? If your walking down the street I have every right to ask you what your doing. You can choose to answer me, tell me to piss off, keep walking or god forbid call 911 It does not give you the right to punch me. Martin wasn'y scared that night. The gf statements prove this. He was pissed that he was followed. He confronted Zimmerman and ended up the loser. Could have just kept walking and would be alive today.

Yeah, he's the total source of all his ills. Yup...

[i39.tinypic.com image 850x251]

He chose to confront Zimmerman. Zimmerman had lost track of him according to the 911 recording. Martin to double back and attack Zimmerman. Idiot got shot and deserved it.

gimmegimme:PoochUMD: Again, nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. How does Zimmerman stalk/chase/hunt/etc after Martin for 4 minutes, only to be 100 feet from the truck when the confrontation happens? IMO, it's only possible if Martin hides or doubles back and therefore Zimmerman never really chased after anyone, he just ran behind a house and the kid was already gone.

So you're saying that Zimmy is a terrible wannabe law enforcement officer. I agree.

If you can't answer the question because it contradicts with your predetermined conclusion, you can just keep quiet, no one is forcing you to respond.

PoochUMD:Who said anything about stand your ground? I've read for the past 16 months that Zimmerman stalked Martin through neighborhood, some even claim that he caught him and/or kept him from continuing on his way home. Explain how that is possible only to have the confrontation happen 4 minutes later, only 100 feet away.

100 feet away from where the truck wound up you mean? Remember, in the truck driving was when Martin realized he was being followed. Zimmerman only stopped and exited the truck when Martin started running -away- from the road. The confrontation happened very close to where Zimmerman would have first lost sight of Martin rounding that corner into the alley. Martin probably went to ground there, attempting to hide. Statistically this is what many people do - what police are trained to look for when they lose sight of a suspect actually, because more often than not people hide as soon as they can - and Zimmerman has even directly stated Martin was hiding, and the phone call you can infer he thought it at the time, too.

If Martin was hiding in the immediate area that Zimmerman looked for him, that would explain the timing and the location and why he didn't move from there. Zimmerman may have found him or not, Martin may have left his hiding spot to confront or not, it may have been a sheer accident of them meeting again (Zimmerman went past where Martin was likely hiding and kept going, then on the way back to the truck would have passed right by that spot again, at which point he could have found Martin, martin may have thought it was safe to head home and came out, or Martin came out to confront him). We don't just know.

What we do knowit that its not any big mystery why the confrontation happened where it did, and it didn't require either one to double back (intentionally anyway - Zimmerman did go by that spot twice, though it may have been still during his hunt, or may have just been going back to the truck after giving up the hunt).

This part of people arguments is a red herring, and the truth reflects on neither side one way or the other (which is why its ignored a lot I suspect)

So, you've made a complete ass of yourself, and couldn't look any sillier than if you'd put on clown shoes and worn your underwear on the outside of your pants, and have NOTHING to show where what I've SAID is incorrect.

But not satisfied with your reputation as a moron, you decide to IMAGINE that I "think" the Florida jury instructions are not what they really are.

First, the question of whether the standard jury instructions accurately reflect the law is a different issue.

But more importantly, it's not something I have ever discussed. So you have no idea what I "think."

If you're just going to imagine whatever pitiful facts about me you need to, in order to rescue your failing self-image, go ahead, but do it privately. No one wants to see your strawman abuse and mental masturbations.

CliChe Guevara:PoochUMD: Who said anything about stand your ground? I've read for the past 16 months that Zimmerman stalked Martin through neighborhood, some even claim that he caught him and/or kept him from continuing on his way home. Explain how that is possible only to have the confrontation happen 4 minutes later, only 100 feet away.

100 feet away from where the truck wound up you mean? Remember, in the truck driving was when Martin realized he was being followed. Zimmerman only stopped and exited the truck when Martin started running -away- from the road. The confrontation happened very close to where Zimmerman would have first lost sight of Martin rounding that corner into the alley. Martin probably went to ground there, attempting to hide. Statistically this is what many people do - what police are trained to look for when they lose sight of a suspect actually, because more often than not people hide as soon as they can - and Zimmerman has even directly stated Martin was hiding, and the phone call you can infer he thought it at the time, too.

If Martin was hiding in the immediate area that Zimmerman looked for him, that would explain the timing and the location and why he didn't move from there. Zimmerman may have found him or not, Martin may have left his hiding spot to confront or not, it may have been a sheer accident of them meeting again (Zimmerman went past where Martin was likely hiding and kept going, then on the way back to the truck would have passed right by that spot again, at which point he could have found Martin, martin may have thought it was safe to head home and came out, or Martin came out to confront him). We don't just know.

What we do knowit that its not any big mystery why the confrontation happened where it did, and it didn't require either one to double back (intentionally anyway - Zimmerman did go by that spot twice, though it may have been still during his hunt, or may have just been going back to the truck after giving up the hunt).

Th ...

Except Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend.you don't exactly talk to someone on the phone if you're trying to hide your whereabouts from someone a few feet away.As Zimmerman couldn't hear Martin on the phone, it's pretty safe to say he wasn't within ear shot so that would require coming back to Zimmerman.

So, you've made a complete ass of yourself, and couldn't look any sillier than if you'd put on clown shoes and worn your underwear on the outside of your pants, and have NOTHING to show where what I've SAID is incorrect.

But not satisfied with your reputation as a moron, you decide to IMAGINE that I "think" the Florida jury instructions are not what they really are.

First, the question of whether the standard jury instructions accurately reflect the law is a different issue.

But more importantly, it's not something I have ever discussed. So you have no idea what I "think."

If you're just going to imagine whatever pitiful facts about me you need to, in order to rescue your failing self-image, go ahead, but do it privately. No one wants to see your strawman abuse and mental masturbations.

MFAWG:What (and remember this phrase, because you're going to hear it in the prosecution's closing argument several times) was the 'sequence of events' that led up to this altercation?

here is what I think happened based on all available evidence, witness accounts and Zimmerman's own statements.

Zimmerman left his home. He saw Trayvon acting "suspicious". He calls the cops. Trayvon notices that he has been seen, and tries to intimidate Zimmerman by acting tough and pretending to be armed. Trayvon walks away. Zimmerman exits his vehicle and tries to keep Trayvon in sight while speaking to cops. Trayvon, realizing Zimmerman is on the phone, possibly with police, runs. Zimmerman pursues until dispatch says "we don't need you to do that" and stops. Trayvon, pissed that he has been watched, decides to loop back to teach Zimmerman a lesson about watching people. Trayvon proceeds to Zimmerman's location and punches him in the face, breaking his nose and knocking him down. Trayvon mounts Zimmerman and begins to beat the shiat out of him. Zimmerman's jacket pulls up exposing a weapon. Trayvon says something to the effect of "you are gonna die tonight" and goes for the weapon. Zimmerman gets the weapon from its holster and fires one shot. Trayvon dies.

Totally 100 percent accurate? Possibly not, but I'd wager is very very close to what actually occurred and is a far cry from "Zimmerman stalked and murdered an innocent black child". It is the sequence of events lined out by all of the available evidence.

gimmegimme:Mid_mo_mad_man: Mid_mo_mad_man: Two16: Mid_mo_mad_man: IamAwake: kendelrio: IamAwake: He deserved to get a little beat up for that,

So women who wear short skirts, lots of makeup and are out of their homes after dark unaccompanied deserve rape? Nice bit of logic you have there.......

nice bit of cutting out text you have there...

If a person attacks someone, then chases them down and attacks them again, then at some point "most would think" that the person being attacked is justified in keeping the attacker from attacking a third time. If you think that has absolutely any comparison to raping someone based on what they are wearing, you're a complete and total idiot. That, and just because "most would think" something doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with it.

How is following someone attacking them? If your walking down the street I have every right to ask you what your doing. You can choose to answer me, tell me to piss off, keep walking or god forbid call 911 It does not give you the right to punch me. Martin wasn'y scared that night. The gf statements prove this. He was pissed that he was followed. He confronted Zimmerman and ended up the loser. Could have just kept walking and would be alive today.

Yeah, he's the total source of all his ills. Yup...

[i39.tinypic.com image 850x251]

He chose to confront Zimmerman. Zimmerman had lost track of him according to the 911 recording. Martin to double back and attack Zimmerman. Idiot got shot and deserved it.

That should be Martin choose to double back

And Zimmy chose to continue his armed pursuit on foot.

Which means nothing. Zimmerman has the right to walk the street. Martin does not have to beat him for it. It's been firmly established that the thug wasn't scared.

This text is now purple:CliChe Guevara: gimmegimme: Stand Your Ground doesn't require a person to try and run away; you just have to be in fear for your life.

Martin experienced both. So he was well covered under that law. What was your point again?

There is not and never has been an argument that Martin did not have the right to defend himself.

PoochUMD:gimmegimme:And Zimmy chose to continue his armed pursuit on foot.

30 seconds ago you couldn't explain how there was a pursuit based on the evidence.

I'm trying to point out that there are some folks who are saying that Martin pursued Zimmerman, but won't acknowledge that Zimmerman did the same (and had a gun). Sure, Zimmy may have been standing between the houses, but this was in the middle of an armed pursuit.

The overall theme in these threads is the astounding lack of empathy some have for Martin and their inability to acknowledge--even if they think the shooting is 100% justified--how Zimmerman could have made bad choices that led to the death of a kid. (Or a "thug," depending on who you talk to.)

Some folks won't even acknowledge that Zimmy was in armed pursuit, even though both terms are completely accurate.